Embodiments herein generally relate to electrostatographic printers and copiers, reproduction machines, as well as any machine or manual operation that provides folding operations, and more particularly, concerns a method, system, service, and/or computer program, that provides a more useful user interface to the folding choices available.
Remotely-instantiated document submission to highly automated digital workflows is rapidly becoming the industry standard for document production. Standards and user interface paradigms that can eliminate communication bottlenecks are useful in ensuring that such digital workflows can provide the cost and efficiency benefits that are critical to success. While most job parameters (such as the specification of color, paper, size, binding, etc.) have been relatively simple to represent and communicate via digital interfaces, the specification of folding remains a common bottleneck in digital workflows. The embodiments herein are useful with printing/copying/finishing devices that provide folding options and that allow users to remotely operate such printing/copying/finishing devices or operate such printing/copying/finishing devices in a self-serve, unassisted manner.
In the production document finishing environment, there are few factors that involve more potential confusion than in the folding arena. Even the simplest of folds have a number of potential alternative variations, and it is all too often up to the finishing provider to pre-suppose the designer's intent when determining the “correct” way to fold a printed piece. Historically, document designers have communicated more than the simplest folding intent to print providers by producing a hand-folded “mock-up” of a proof to the provider, in an effort to eliminate confusion. As print job specification and submission is increasingly handled online, however, such a method of communicating folds becomes impractical, if not impossible, adding a substantial layer of inefficiency to a process that is otherwise intended to provide a great deal of convenience and efficiency.
A number of computer-based folding intent user interface paradigms are available and are used in a variety of scenarios, from desktop-based print drivers to Internet-based submission system. For example, one method for processing user inputs in an automated folding process is disclosed in U.S. Patent Publications 2006/0055100, 2005/0187088 and 2004/0071529, the complete disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. On the surface, such systems seem quite adequate but careful consideration of these reveals serious shortcomings. For instance, one current print driver offers a few folding options for users who have the necessary finishing equipment installed. These drivers offer a few simple folds, such as middle, three-panel letter/brochure, and three-panel accordion (aka “concertina”) folds, all selectable via a simple radio button series in the finishing user interface. Likewise, many Internet-based job submission systems offer similar user interfaces.
In these user interfaces, if a user selects, for instance, the seemingly-simple three-panel “letter” fold, it is not possible to predict the physical result without an example of a finished piece in hand. This is because there are four potential variations of this fold for each orientation of the piece (i.e., landscape or portrait). While it is generally easy for the end user to specify the piece's orientation, it is not possible to specify the direction the folds take (i.e., toward the front or the back of the piece), or which of the piece's thirds are folded first (i.e., the top or bottom). To make matters worse, while a person folding a letter using this fold may speak in terms of the “top” or “bottom” of the piece, a person designing a brochure using the identical fold may label the corresponding parts “left” and “right.”
In the case of a job being submitted to an in-house printing system, an experienced designer will have typically internalized the way the existing equipment processes a fold, and he or she will design a piece accordingly. However, this designer will still likely run a folded proof to ascertain that all is well before performing a final run. Therefore, even the simplest of folds often require human intervention.
In the case of a designer submitting a piece to an unknown, remote printing system, however, the designer typically will not even have the luxury of running a piece through the production equipment two or three times to “get it right.” In this case, the designer must take the time to find a way to communicate the folding intent to the printer, either verbally or via a mockup, and it will almost always be necessary for the designer to request a proof to validate that the communication was successful. This presents a less-than-optimum solution.
Other solutions provide a standardized set of folds that users can specify to printers who have purchased, licensed, or are familiar with a specific system. Such systems are not universal, are prohibitively expensive, and comprehending the various folds still involves a substantial amount of human effort and consideration.